Change role, client or grants

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Goes meaningfully beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) by disclosing that nothing is executed without confirm:true and that there is no server-side dry run — critical for an irreversible remote mutation. It does not state permission requirements or what the preview/response contains, which would have pushed this higher.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two dense sentences: the operation and endpoint first, the safety constraint second. No filler, and the most important caveat is front-loaded in caps.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a nested-body mutation with no output schema, the essential missing piece for correct invocation — the confirm preview gate — is covered. Gaps are secondary: no mention of what the preview returns, no authorization notes, no idempotency guidance.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 50%; the description's 'role, client or grants' informally maps to role, clientId and permissions, which helps the agent interpret 'grants'. However idempotencyKey is untouched and no value constraints (allowed roles, maxItems 2) are added — those live purely in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb plus the mutable fields ('Change role, client or grants') and pins the resource with 'PATCH /v1/members/{id}'. It is clearly a membership mutation, distinct from members_list/members_audit, though it never names a sibling to contrast with members_remove.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Implicitly tells the agent this is the update path for an existing member, but gives no when-to-use vs. members_remove or invites_create, and no prerequisites (e.g., who may change owner role). The confirm gate is presented as a procedural rule rather than usage guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.